Hawking, God & the Universe

Morbert

Malty_T wrote: »

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D

That is brilliant. But the book I'm talking about is this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0224080369

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not really. If an infinite multiverse is true, and within it we have every single possible universe, then it logically follows that within this multiverse there will be a universe where God is necessary. Wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then why can't the universe we inhabit be that universe? Who is to say that it isn't? If you don't agree then there is no such thing as a multiverse wherein every possible universe exists.

When physicists say every 'possible' universe. They are referring to every possible history of the universe where "history" is a version of Richard Feynmann's sum-over-histories formalism of quantum mechanics.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Road's to Reality? Second that, it's absolutely brilliant.:D

In case you haven't listened to it yet, Penrose discusses Conformal Cyclic Cosmology during the show.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics at this stage.

If there is a multivese then how did it begin?

If M-theory is correct (and I think everyone agrees that this is a big if at this stage, it is a totally untested hypothesis), then the multiverse didn't being, it is infinite.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it had no beginning then that means that it must have existed infinitely in the past. But if it has existed infinitely in the past then the number of events which lead to our universe coming into existence is also infinite in the past, which means that our universe could never be arrived at now because there would be an infinite number of past events that need to have happened in order to get to where we are now, and if there is an infinite number of events that must have preceded our universe then our universe could not exist now, in other words we can never come to now in our universe if the multivese had no beginning, which means that (if it does exist) then it must have had a beginning, because we are here and now.

Why could we not exist if the multiverse is infinite?

In m-theory if I'm following we have two high dimensional "branes" colliding with each other and then pulling apart, colliding pulling apart over and over infinitely. Each universe is created and then destroyed and replaced by another one.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Why could we not exist if the multiverse is infinite?

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Which means that if the multivese is real then it must also be finite in the past, which would mean that we could exist now given that the number of past events which lead to our universe would also be finite?

So which is it? Finite or infinite? If its true then it must be finite and if its finite the how did it begin?

Soul Winner

On a separate note re: Stephen Hawking: I was watching his program the other night and he said in it that if we were to find microbes on another world then it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. Now for humans to find microbes on say Mars it would take an unbelievable effort on the part of NASA/ESA to get us there and back in order to do so. It would cost billions and it take a very long time to prepare for and executed the mission. Then at the end of program he was talking about people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and that he would approach such stories with caution and skepticism because he doubts very much that aliens would travel such vast distances to abduct an insignificant human.

I thought that was a very strange thing to say considering what it would take for us (effort and money wise) to collect simple microbes from Mars or Europa or wherever. If life is as rare as some people think it is and rarer still technologically advanced life, then I would say that you would be hard pressed to one up your alien competitors had they bagged a human being to study. Just thought it was a strange thing for him to say given what he said about microbes and just thought I'd share that with you.

kelly1

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Which means that if the multivese is real then it must also be finite in the past, which would mean that we could exist now given that the number of past events which lead to our universe would also be finite?

Wow that's long-winded! I think the basic question is, can an actual infinity exist? Apparently an actual infinity is self-contradictory. One for the mathematicians and philosophers...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well logically speaking, if the branes which collided together to create our universe existed infinitely in the past, then the number of events which lead up to the creation of our temporal universe is also infinite in the past, which means that an infinite number of events must have happened in the past in order to get to to where we are now. But if an infinite number of events happened in the past which lead up to where we are now then we can never arrive at now in reality given that the number of events which lead to our universe would be still taking place given that their number is infinite.

Ah right, yes now I get you. That is known as the infinite past paradox and it is a tricky one at first glance. But if you sit down and work it out logically it doesn't actually hold as a problem.

The issue arises when viewing time as something you have to move through to get to the next point. This is the "one true present" paradigm. And the present can never get to this point if it has an infinite number of points to get to before hand. If you view time like that then it looks like you can never reach "now" since you have an infinite number of things to do before you can reach "now".

The thing is this isn't actually necessary. You can propose an infinite space without requiring that you have to travel to all points. Likewise an infinite time would not require that you move through time to get to each point on the time line. There becomes no true present.

This blog post explains it better than I could.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/04/unchanging-time-and-infinite-past.html

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

On a separate note re: Stephen Hawking: I was watching his program the other night and he said in it that if we were to find microbes on another world then it would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science. Now for humans to find microbes on say Mars it would take an unbelievable effort on the part of NASA/ESA to get us there and back in order to do so. It would cost billions and it take a very long time to prepare for and executed the mission. Then at the end of program he was talking about people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and that he would approach such stories with caution and skepticism because he doubts very much that aliens would travel such vast distances to abduct an insignificant human.

I thought that was a very strange thing to say considering what it would take for us (effort and money wise) to collect simple microbes from Mars or Europa or wherever. If life is as rare as some people think it is and rarer still technologically advanced life, then I would say that you would be hard pressed to one up your alien competitors had they bagged a human being to study. Just thought it was a strange thing for him to say given what he said about microbes and just thought I'd share that with you.

The issue is the distances required are so huge as to make it rather impractical.

Travelling to Mars is quite a bit easier than travelling to another star system.

From the same program (or series at least) If we could get up to 99.9% of the speed of light time on the space ship would slow down significantly but it will still take 80 years to get to the edge of the galaxy (or 250,000 years for people on Earth)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, yes now I get you. That is known as the infinite past paradox and it is a tricky one at first glance. But if you sit down and work it out logically it doesn't actually hold as a problem.

The issue arises when viewing time as something you have to move through to get to the next point. This is the "one true present" paradigm. And the present can never get to this point if it has an infinite number of points to get to before hand. If you view time like that then it looks like you can never reach "now" since you have an infinite number of things to do before you can reach "now".

The thing is this isn't actually necessary. You can propose an infinite space without requiring that you have to travel to all points. Likewise an infinite time would not require that you move through time to get to each point on the time line. There becomes no true present.

Well if we propose that then time doesn't really exist. If the 'now', in which I'm typing this is the same as the 'now' in which I posted my last post, all be it separated by many other 'nows' in between, then how are we able to measure the age of something if we don't connect the 'nows' in between chronologically? If the earth as we see it today is 4.5 billion years old but 4.5 billion years ago it was just starting to form from space dust, then under this new recooking of time the earth has always been the same, that the addition of time is just a series of 'nows' added to the mix, that there was no previous events as such which lead to its formation i.e. solar system development due to supernovae activity creating the heavy elements which go up to make the planets and so on, and before that other events such as star and galaxy formation due to the clumping of matter due to gravity acting on the rapid expansion of space and matter due to the initial force of the big bang and then right back before the big bang itself to these colliding branes.

If we assume that 'now' in time is the same as 'here' in space then potentially every place in the universe can be considered 'here' and every time in the universe can be considered 'now', meaning that now 'now' is the same as then 'now'. And where you are in the world is 'here' just as much as where I am in the world is 'here'. Which means that in a sense not only is time relative but space is also relative too, depending on where we are in it, meaning that if there is no such thing as time then there is no such thing as distance either.

Where you are in the world is 'here' to you but where I am in the world is 'here' to me. But where you are in the world is 'there' to me and if I measure the distance from 'there' to where i am i.e. 'here' I will arrive at a figure. Same thing with time. I can measure from 'now' (i.e. when I am typing this) to the time that this thread was started. The number of events which lead up to me typing this can be measured from the time that this thread was started right up till now, and the number of events within that time is a finite figure.

So even though time is relative in this sense, events can still be traced from one 'now' in the past to another 'now' in the not so distant past. But in an infinite multivese we can never do this because there is no starting event from which we can start calculating forward from, there is just an infinite number of events which lead up to 'now', and in a multivese where there are an infinite number of events which preceded our present then we can never arrive at our present because the number of events which lead to it would still be taking place. So the fact that we are in the present proves that even if the multivese hypothesis is true it must be finite in the past. So if its finite in the past then how did it start? What caused it? Had to be something.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the earth as we see it today is 4.5 billion years old but 4.5 billion years ago it was just starting to form from space dust, then under this new recooking of time the earth has always been the same, that the addition of time is just a series of 'nows' added to the mix, that there was no previous events as such which lead to its formation i.e. solar system development due to supernovae activity creating the heavy elements which go up to make the planets and so on, and before that other events such as star and galaxy formation due to the clumping of matter due to gravity acting on the rapid expansion of space and matter due to the initial force of the big bang and then right back before the big bang itself to these colliding branes.

That is just the same problem re imagined.

Again the issue is the idea that "now" starts at the beginning of time and then moves, one second (or what ever) at a time to the next point and to the next point and to the next point. Given that each point has an infinite number "behind" it it is impossible for "now" to get to any particular point because it would have to pass through an infinite number of points to get to any point. It becomes a paradox.

The key is realizing that a start is not actually necessary, there doesn't have to be a start and in fact in infinite time there isn't a start.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That is just the same problem re imagined.

Again the issue is the idea that "now" starts at the beginning of time and then moves, one second (or what ever) at a time to the next point and to the next point and to the next point. Given that each point has an infinite number "behind" it it is impossible for "now" to get to any particular point because it would have to pass through an infinite number of points to get to any point. It becomes a paradox.

The key is realizing that a start is not actually necessary, there doesn't have to be a start and in fact in infinite time there isn't a start.

But that's my point. If there isn't a start then there can't be a now. But there is a now so there must have been a start.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

So even though time is relative in this sense, events can still be traced from one 'now' in the past to another 'now' in the not so distant past. But in an infinite multivese we can never do this because there is no starting event from which we can start calculating forward from, there is just an infinite number of events which lead up to 'now', and in a multivese where there are an infinite number of events which preceded our present then we can never arrive at our present because the number of events which lead to it would still be taking place. So the fact that we are in the present proves that even if the multivese hypothesis is true it must be finite in the past. So if its finite in the past then how did it start? What caused it? Had to be something.

A time interval is the "temporal distance" between two moments. Even if time is considered infinite, the time-interval between any two events will be finite, and can be measured. In a similar manner, the number line is infinitely long, but the difference between any two numbers will always be finite.

In the multiverse scenario, we would not have to worry about counting forward from some absolute beginning. We would just label our two events T1 and T2, and work out the "distance" between them by counting from T1 to T2.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that's my point. If there isn't a start then there can't be a now. But there is a now so there must have been a start.

Only if you suppose "now" requires the previous point to that had previously been "now" in order for the current present to exist.

That isn't a requirement. A moving present isn't necessary for the next point in the time line to exist. It can just exist, just like infinite space can just exist.

Morbert

To expand on Wicknight's point. If time is infinite, it would indeed be impossible to move across the entire past and future in a finite interval. But it would always be possible to move from any point in the past to what we consider "now" in finite time. I.e. There is no event so far into the past that "now" could never be reached from it.

Dougla2

tihs is probably a redundant post considering a didnt read all posts so it probably all ready been said but hawking is an atheist yes but he did NOT say god didn't create the universe he did say god was not need to explain the universe any more

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

A time interval is the "temporal distance" between two moments. Even if time is considered infinite, the time-interval between any two events will be finite, and can be measured. In a similar manner, the number line is infinitely long, but the difference between any two numbers will always be finite.

In the multiverse scenario, we would not have to worry about counting forward from some absolute beginning. We would just label our two events T1 and T2, and work out the "distance" between them by counting from T1 to T2.

By definition an infinitely old universe is time-less, hence there is no such thing as time, hence there would be no such thing as T1 and T2, there's just 'now'. In such a time-less universe we could not measure the temporal distances between moments using units of measure called time because there is no such unit of measure in a time-less universe. So if there is no ultimate beginning but we still want to live in time, then the point stands, we can never arrive at 'now' due to the infinite number of events that must have taken place in the past in order to lead up to 'now', because those events would be still taking place such that 'now' could never be arrive at. Or, we could simply be living in an infinitely old universe but always in the 'now' and such one where there would be no such thing as time, meaning that we cannot measure anything in units of time, including temporal distances between moments.

Soul Winner

Dougla2 wrote: »

tihs is probably a redundant post considering a didnt read all posts so it probably all ready been said but hawking is an atheist yes but he did NOT say god didn't create the universe he did say god was not need to explain the universe any more

If the multivese hypothesis is false then our universe is the only one there is. And if our universe is the only one there is and it came into existences from virtually nothing at all, then as an atheist, Stephen Hawking believes that our universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing.

But even if the multivese hypothesis is true, it is not a given that it is infinitely old in the past. But if it is infinitely old in the past then our universe would still be waiting to come into existence because our universe is but one in an infinitely old procession of universe popping into and out of existence. So if the multivese hypothesis is true then our universe proves that it is not infinitely old in the past and as such it too had a beginning, which begs the question, how did it get going?

jobee

Trolling Deleted

PDN

jobee wrote: »

Why would an omnipotent creator want us continually praying and pleading to
him ?

Will we ever grow up?

In answer to your first question: God wants a relationship with us because He is gracious and compassionate.

In answer to your second question: I don't really know if you will ever grow up. I'm not a medical professional or a psychologist, so I'm not really qualified to comment on your lack of maturity.

jobee

PDN wrote: »

In answer to your first question: God wants a relationship with us because He is gracious and compassionate.

In answer to your second question: I don't really know if you will ever grow up. I'm not a medical professional or a psychologist, so I'm not really qualified to comment on your lack of maturity.[

/QUOTE] I was taught god knew it all. Yes i can see you're not qualified by your verbal gymnastics.

Yak yak yak I bet you're a budding preacher.

No wonder they call us thick paddies. Still giving money to Rome are we .

PDN

jobee wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

In answer to your first question: God wants a relationship with us because He is gracious and compassionate.

In answer to your second question: I don't really know if you will ever grow up. I'm not a medical professional or a psychologist, so I'm not really qualified to comment on your lack of maturity.[

/QUOTE] I was taught god knew it all. Yes i can see you're not qualified by your verbal gymnastics. Yak yak yak I bet you're a budding preacher..

Less of the 'budding' please.

Turtwig

jobee wrote: »

Still giving money to Rome are we .

PDN isn't a Catholic so I'd very much doubt he gives money to Rome.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

PDN isn't a Catholic so I'd very much doubt he gives money to Rome.

I bought a sandwich at Rome airport on my way to Sicily last year. Does that count?

Fanny Cradock

BTW, after a weeks break where the future for "new atheism" was discussed, the second instalment on Hawking, God & the Universe will be aired on Saturday. AFAIK, if will feature John Polkinghorne (good), Hugh Ross (not so good) and some atheist scientist I'm not familiar with.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

I bought a sandwich at Rome airport on my way to Sicily last year. Does that count?

Well if it was Roma Ciampino Airport you gave money to the CIA so that's a no for there. If it was the Leonardo Da Vinci one then you gave money towards art (or at least the spirit of art), so again that's a no.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

BTW, after a weeks break where the future for "new atheism" was discussed, the second instalment on Hawking, God & the Universe will be aired on Saturday. AFAIK, if will feature John Polkinghorne (good), Hugh Ross (not so good) and some atheist scientist I'm not familiar with.

Polky -no problem, atheisty - tbc, Rossy - HUGE Problem.

If Atheisty and Rossy are pseudoscientists then I guess we will have some balance there....

jobee

PDN wrote: »

jobee wrote: »

Less of the 'budding' please.

How much longer will you and yours give money to Rome. Plus, why is it your idea of a good idea. They play much better football, and money counts in football.

Zombrex

jobee wrote: »

How much longer will you and yours give money to Rome. Plus, why is it your idea of a good idea. They play much better football, and money counts in football.

this is going to end well

PDN

jobee wrote: »

How much longer will you and yours give money to Rome. Plus, why is it your idea of a good idea. They play much better football, and money counts in football.

Oh get a grip you annoying troll. I don't give any money to Rome.

Now if you want to engage in the thread - fine. If not, then go away.

jobee

PDN wrote: »

Oh get a grip you annoying troll. I don't give any money to Rome.

Now if you want to engage in the thread - fine. If not, then go away.

I'm Irish, Why 'ever' did Irish money go to Rome. Weddings, funerals, bookshops.

Help me help Ireland.

Turtwig

jobee wrote: »

I'm Irish, Why 'ever' did Irish money go to Rome. Weddings, funerals, bookshops.

Help me help Ireland.

Yes you do need help. My help to you would be to advice you stop posting here before you get a ban.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Polky -no problem, atheisty - tbc, Rossy - HUGE Problem.

If Atheisty and Rossy are pseudoscientists then I guess we will have some balance there....

Whatever about the whole OEC thing, in fairness to Ross he does have a PhD in astronomy and apparently was the "youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society" (Wiki)

PDN

jobee wrote: »

I'm Irish, Why 'ever' did Irish money go to Rome. Weddings, funerals, bookshops.

Help me help Ireland.

jobee is on holiday. Hopefully not in Rome.

Scanlas The 2nd

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics at this stage.

If there is a multivese then how did it begin? If it had no beginning then that means that it must have existed infinitely in the past. But if it has existed infinitely in the past then the number of events which lead to our universe coming into existence is also infinite in the past, which means that our universe could never be arrived at now because there would be an infinite number of past events that need to have happened in order to get to where we are now, and if there is an infinite number of events that must have preceded our universe then our universe could not exist now, in other words we can never come to now in our universe if the multivese had no beginning, which means that (if it does exist) then it must have had a beginning, because we are here and now. But if the multivese does have a beginning then how did it get going?

I feel the need to butt in here. You weren't getting bogged down in semantics, your reasoning was simply awful and painful to read.

A universe that requires a God to exist cannot exist without God by definition. Basically you made the point that if you agree with the above statement which is true by definition you aren't considering alternative logic. You confused yourself. I reiterate, a universe that requires a God can't exist without a God. Thats about as simple as 2=2.

Soul Winner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I feel the need to butt in here. You weren't getting bogged down in semantics, your reasoning was simply awful and painful to read.

A universe that requires a God to exist cannot exist without God by definition. Basically you made the point that if you agree with the above statement which is true by definition you aren't considering alternative logic. You confused yourself. I reiterate, a universe that requires a God can't exist without a God. Thats about as simple as 2=2.

Firstly, I apologize if my meanderings caused you undue pain in the reading, that wasn't my intention.

Regarding your point though, eh, what is your point?

Anyway, some more pain if you're up for it

Did I say that our universe requires God to exist? We were discussing time and eternity. If our universe only exists in time then we can measure distances between moments of time in measures of time. If our universe is eternal (time-less) then there is no such thing as time and therefore we cannot measure distances (or better still - instances) between moments in measures of time.

It would be like asking someone to measure the depth of a tank of water in feet that was bottomless i.e. stretched down wards to infinity. Except the analogy would break down, because our present 'now' in time is still on going but the theoretical tank of water - although infinitely deep - stops at the surface, (unless we postulate one that continues to grow up wards). Anyway, we could measure from the surface down wards but if we were to measure from the bottom up, we could never arrive at the top because it is infinitely deep. My whole point is that this is a logical impossibility, you could never have an infinitely deep tank of water and be able to arrive at its surface, same thing with an infinitely old universe, we can never arrive at 'now' if the universe is infinitely old.

The fact that we have arrived at 'now' in time confirms that the universe (or the multivese for that matter) is not infinitely old. So if its not infinitely old, then it had a beginning in time, and if it had a beginning in time, then what caused it? Whatever caused it must be time-less (i.e. existing outside of time - eternal), immaterial and space-less, but also powerful enough to produce such an effect as a universe, but powerful in the sense of supernatural power, i.e. power wholly apart from anything we know about in our universe. There is only one concept within the confines of the mind of mankind that fits all of these attributes and that is God. So I'm not starting with the premise that the universe requires God to exist therefore without God it cannot exist. I'm starting with our concept of time an eternity and working through those and what we do know about our universe from observation back to their logical conclusion (or starting point, whatever way you want to look at it).

If God is not the cause then what is? There are some who will say in one breath that the conclusion that God did it is not supported by hard evidence and that it cannot be tested scientifically and therefore it is not a proper scientific hypothesis, and yet in the same breath will say that postulating colliding branes and multivese is a valid scientific endeavor even though we have no evidence for either and neither can be tested scientifically.

If our universe came into being at a finite time in the past then it had a cause. But no matter what that cause might be, we will never be able to test for it scientifically because everything we know about physics breaks down at the instant the universe began to exist, so postulating for any kind of cause will ultimately require a lot of faith in the person willing to stake their intellectual reputation on it.

Is that clearer or have I muddied the waters even more?

thirtythirty

Soul Winner wrote: »

The fact that we have arrived at 'now' in time confirms that the universe (or the multivese for that matter) is not infinitely old. So if its not infinitely old, then it had a beginning in time, and if it had a beginning in time, then what caused it? Whatever caused it must be time-less (i.e. existing outside of time - eternal).......

Yes, the universe as it currently exists did have a beginning in time (as far as we know), but time as we experience it (i.e. linear) means that time had to be elapsing before and during the creation. Therefore there doesn't have to be something transcendant of time at all. So the argument of a being existing external of time is redundant.

Who knows what kicked off the first sequences of the universe as we know it expanding. You're a fiend for rationalising a logical train of thought, but throwing in a sweeping assumption and attributing God to it!

Soul Winner

spottyelephant wrote: »

Yes, the universe as it currently exists did have a beginning in time (as far as we know), but time as we experience it (i.e. linear) means that time had to be elapsing before and during the creation.

How can you say that? When everyone holds to the idea that time itself began when the universe began?

spottyelephant wrote: »

Therefore there doesn't have to be something transcendant of time at all. So the argument of a being existing external of time is redundant.

No its not. If time itself began to exist when the universe began to exist then time also has a cause. So whatever it was that caused time to begin must be time-less i.e. Eternal.

spottyelephant wrote: »

Who knows what kicked off the first sequences of the universe as we know it expanding. You're a fiend for rationalising a logical train of thought, but throwing in a sweeping assumption and attributing God to it!

So what do you think caused time and the universe to begin to exists?

Morbert

The fact that we have arrived at 'now' in time confirms that the universe (or the multivese for that matter) is not infinitely old.

It would be like asking someone to measure the depth of a tank of water in feet that was bottomless i.e. stretched down wards to infinity. Except the analogy would break down, because our present 'now' in time is still on going but the theoretical tank of water - although infinitely deep - stops at the surface, (unless we postulate one that continues to grow up wards). Anyway, we could measure from the surface down wards but if we were to measure from the bottom up, we could never arrive at the top because it is infinitely deep. My whole point is that this is a logical impossibility, you could never have an infinitely deep tank of water and be able to arrive at its surface, same thing with an infinitely old universe, we can never arrive at 'now' if the universe is infinitely old.

What this demonstrates is the depth of an infinitely deep tank of water will not be some finite number. If you start measuring from the bottom, a finite tape measure will never reach the top. And if you start from the top, a finite tape measure will never reach the bottom. Similarly, if you start from the present (ignoring relativity for the time being) and move back in time, you will never reach the "beginning of the universe" in some finite time interval. And the present could never be reached from the beginning in some finite time interval.

But this logic does not work for infinite time intervals and infinite tape measurers. A tape measure affinely extended from the bottom would measure depth at all points in the tank, and the surface would be at +infinity.

thirtythirty

Soul Winner wrote: »

How can you say that? When everyone holds to the idea that time itself began when the universe began?

The statement "when time began" is in relation to time as we know it in our universe. Time is a concept for measuring the distance between events, therefore time, as we view it, was running 1 second before the creation, 5 minutes before the creation, 10 minutes before the creation etc etc.

"Time in work" for me began this morning, but time in general was running before that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No its not. If time itself began to exist when the universe began to exist then time also has a cause. So whatever it was that caused time to begin must be time-less i.e. Eternal.

Assuming time began, which cannot be proven, and is subjective in nature anyway as outlined above.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So what do you think caused time and the universe to begin to exists?

I don't know. I personally am not going to default to the thought of a magical being that conveniently is able to do it, with no explanation or proof though. But neither is it my place to say that that isn't the case. If you want to believe that, cool. But in my opinion, that guess is more unlikely than likely.

Soul Winner

You said this:

spottyelephant wrote: »

...time, as we view it, was running 1 second before the creation, 5 minutes before the creation, 10 minutes before the creation etc etc.

"Time in work" for me began this morning, but time in general was running before that.

Then you said this: (emphasis mine)

spottyelephant wrote: »

Assuming time began, which cannot be proven, and is subjective in nature anyway as outlined above.

If time beginning cannot be proven then how do know that it existed before it supposedly existed, or before the universe existed?

spottyelephant wrote: »

I don't know. I personally am not going to default to the thought of a magical being that conveniently is able to do it, with no explanation or proof though. But neither is it my place to say that that isn't the case. If you want to believe that, cool. But in my opinion, that guess is more unlikely than likely.

Magical maybe, but powerful, definitely.

thirtythirty

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then you said this: (emphasis mine)

I can't tell if you read it the way I intended it, or opposite! I wrote it badly, sorry. Just to clarify:

In the first block of text I demonstrated how time as we know it is relative to events. That is to say that if time in the universe started at the creation of the universe, then time (again, as we currently define it) has to have been running before and throughout the creation. Overarching time if you will.

The second bit when I said "assuming time began", i meant, "this statement is based on the assumption that time began outright at the creation of the universe, however that cannot be proven, and is an impossibility in relation to how the concept of time operates as demonstrated above".

Soul Winner wrote: »

If time beginning cannot be proven then how do know that it existed before it supposedly existed, or before the universe existed?

I'm going to skip this question, because i think we got our wires crossed prevously, and I don't think that it makes sense (or that you'd have asked it) in light of my new, lengthier description above!

Soul Winner wrote: »

Magical maybe, but powerful, definitely.

lol. Nice attempt at showing that you're an unshakable follower. I'll forego being lured into the obvious question of why 'definately'

Soul Winner

spottyelephant wrote: »

I can't tell if you read it the way I intended it, or opposite! I wrote it badly, sorry. Just to clarify:

No sweat...

spottyelephant wrote: »

In the first block of text I demonstrated how time as we know it is relative to events. That is to say that if time in the universe started at the creation of the universe, then time (again, as we currently define it) has to have been running before and throughout the creation. Overarching time if you will.

Still not with you. How could time be running before the creation when it started at the creation of the universe?

spottyelephant wrote: »

The second bit when I said "assuming time began", i meant, "this statement is based on the assumption that time began outright at the creation of the universe, however that cannot be proven, and is an impossibility in relation to how the concept of time operates as demonstrated above".

Totally baffled. You're not making sense. For one, it actually has been confirmed by observation that time did begin to exist at the moment of the big bang.

spottyelephant wrote: »

lol. Nice attempt at showing that you're an unshakable follower. I'll forego being lured into the obvious question of why 'definately'

Because the universe exists, hello!!! Whatever it was that caused it to come into being had to have had at least a modicum of some sort of power to bring it about wouldn't you agree? What causes the rapid expansion of the universe today? A force of some kind. How did that force come into being? Another force of some kind, another type of power caused it, and because this power must have existed wholly apart from the universe that is now expanding, then that power must be supernatural in nature, because it obviously operates external and independent of any natural force in the universe that it brought about.

Ash.J.Williams

Did god ever refer to areas outside of the middle east? Or were his words for those people only?

ISAW

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Did god ever refer to areas outside of the middle east?

yes

Or were his words for those people only?

Hmmm. No. Originally yes eventually no.

If civilization began there what others are you taking about?

Fanny Cradock

Second part of the programme here. I enjoyed Polkinghorne's contribution.

Ash.J.Williams

ISAW wrote: »

yes



Hmmm. No. Originally yes eventually no.

If civilization began there what others are you taking about?

Us mainly, word took quite a while to reach us over here?

ISAW

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Us mainly, word took quite a while to reach us over here?

Where? America? I think the current view is that species migrated from Asia into America . they would therefore have originated on the same land mass as the Middle East.

Ash.J.Williams

ISAW wrote: »

Where? America? I think the current view is that species migrated from Asia into America . they would therefore have originated on the same land mass as the Middle East.

sorry i meant us as in he irish, however the south americans another ancient civilisation were completely godless also until the spanish arrived.

Turtwig

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

sorry i meant us as in he irish, however the south americans another ancient civilisation were completely godless also until the spanish arrived.

No they weren't, hasn't anybody here seen Apocalypto?